Since moving near New York City in 1978 I have seen (or heard of)
produced on Broadway the plays "Dracula," "Frankenstein," and, of
course, "The Phantom of the Opera." Having a special interest in
the classics of horror I have seen two of them. I missed
"Frankenstein" which closed after at most two performances. But
the other two were great successes on Broadway. People like to
see plays based on the old horror film classics.

A few years back the play "Jekyll and Hyde," a musical by Leslie
Bricusse played on Broadway. At the time I had vaguely wanted to
see it but was unwilling to pay Broadway prices. However, when
recently there was a local production in a park for a modest
admission price, I jumped at the chance.

First let us say I had some minor problems with the production.
It required a great deal of suspension of disbelief to accept that
people did not recognize Jekyll in Hyde. The actor tried to go
from Jekyll to Hyde solely by changing his posture, his facial
expression, and by throwing his long hair forward. The effect of
the transformation was further sabotaged by the actor having a
characteristic mustache and beard. Hyde looked like nothing so
much as Jekyll getting drunk and fooling around.

But I was more bothered by the Bricusse play itself than the
production. My feeling is that no production, no matter how
professional, could have made me like this particular adaptation.
The first act was slow and lacked the immediacy that a play really
needs. A dance in a music hall was way too Bob Fosse for the late
1800s. The music hall songs were by far the wrong style. But
what bothered me the most was that the playwright showed no sign
of ever having consulted the original story. Going back to at
least the 1920 John Barrymore version the major film versions have
all sort of cribbed from one another rather than re-adapting the
source story. The Bricusse version is very like the best-known
film versions and very unlike the original story by Robert Louis
Stevenson. So what are the differences? Most of these
differences also apply to all the major film versions.

-- I have never heard of a dramatization that had the Stevenson
title of the story "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde."

-- Edward Hyde appears in the Stevenson story even before Henry
Jekyll does. Stevenson does not tell the story in chronological
order. In fact, the origin of Hyde is not told until the last
chapter after Hyde is dead. Admittedly, chronological order may
work better for dramatic purposes.

-- In the Stevenson Hyde (or Jekyll) dies alone and without much
drama. He has taken poison in his laboratory. Films always show
him as having one last transformation after death. The very
cinematic last transformation after death is not from the
Stevenson. The dying man is Hyde before he dies and Hyde's is the
body found.

-- In the films, Jekyll is torn between a well-placed fiancee and
a prostitute. Except for a few very minor background characters,
everyone in the Stevenson story is male. Bricusse even has a maid
in Jekyll's house named Mary Reilly. Mary Reilly was the
invention of a 1990 novel by Valerie Martin. Martin invented the
character of the housemaid who saw Jekyll from a female viewpoint.
In the original Jekyll had only one servant that is mentioned in
the book, Poole, the butler.

-- It had become standard to have Jekyll present the principles of
his upcoming experiment to his colleagues who jeer him and shout
him down. This scene is purely a figment of the movie versions.

One final difference is that the film versions claim that Jekyll
is the most high-minded and virtuous of his peers before the
experiment. Stevenson had no such intention. All that Stevenson
says on the subject is the following:

"And indeed the worst of my faults was a certain impatient gaiety
of disposition, such as has made the happiness of many, but such
as I found it hard to reconcile with my imperious desire to carry
my head high, and wear a more than commonly grave countenance
before the public. Hence it came about that I concealed my
pleasures; and that when I reached years of reflection, and began
to look round me and take stock of my progress and position in the
world, I stood already committed to a profound duplicity of life."

In fact, the character of the virtuous Dr. Henry Jekyll who hid
within him the evil Edward Hyde was suggested by an actual
character famous in Edinburgh, Scotland. It seems that a century
before the novella was written by Stevenson, the locals had been
plagued by ruthless highwayman who had been guilty of many
robberies and had frequently escaped by the narrowest margins.
Eventually the man was found and discovered to be none other than
their own Deacon William Brodie, an upstanding tradesman, wood
work creator, and the deacon of the local church. The shock that
such a fine respected man could be a dangerous highwayman and
robber in his secret life was a scandal thoughout Edinburgh.
Stevenson just decided to tell a similar story and to make the
means of the double life chemical, and that is the story that has
stuck. [-mrl]

CAPSULE: An idea that could have been intriguing but was
mishandled avoiding showing the most interesting scenes of the
story. There are nice moments in REIGN OF FIRE, but there are is
also a lot of comic book-ish civilization on the slag heap
plotting that the viewer has to wade through to get to it.
Rating: 5 (0 to 10), high 0 (-4 to +4). A minor spoiler section
following the main review contains my deductions about aspects of
dragon biology as it might be to explain facets of the plot.

One can see why some of the people who worked on REIGN OF FIRE
might have been enthusiastic about the project, and also why a lot
of the viewers seeing the film are not. This is a film that has a
few diamonds in a lot of rough. The film combines the over-used
cliches of the post-holocaust barbarian society film with some
impressive dragon special effects.

In the prolog to the story we see that the digging of a train
tunnel in London opens an ancient chamber and releases on the
world real dragons--a species more virulent and dangerous than any
other that has ever lived. Previously they brought the downfall
of the dinosaurs. In this release they multiplied in the millions
and quickly spread worldwide to bring the downfall of human
civilization. By the year 2020 the remnants of humanity are
living in holes in the ground and have been reduced to being a
species rapidly going extinct. Quinn (Christian Bale) was present
when the first modern dragon was released. Now he leads a
diminishing band of humans who seem to be valiantly soldiering on,
defending their small bunker system some place that used to be
Northumberland and is now little more a tunnel system under a rock
heap. They keep their stiff upper lips as their members slowly
become dinner for the dragons raining from the sky in rabid
attacks. Along come a militaristic band of Americans led by the
macho tough guy Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey). The Yanks are
crude and violent and step on Quinn's people's rights, but plan to
take the fight directly to the enemy. Van Zan himself is a
Sgt. Rock stereotype with a shaved head, tattoos, bare arms,
military vest, and an inch of grubby cigar between his teeth.
He's a human weapon, but at least he is pointed in the direction
of the dragons. Quinn fears the aggressive element that has
joined his people. In return Van Zan is disgusted by Quinn's
overly defensive strategy. Can they defeat the dragons and save
humanity? (Does a square have four sides?)

In the moments when there are no dragons on the screen, this is an
unpleasant film to watch. It is mostly claustrophobic scenes in
tunnels and shots on rock piles. Limited color is used to create
an oppressive atmosphere. Scenes with dragons are an entirely
different story. The dragons are majestic beauties who seem to
quite naturally take to the air. Their design was strongly
influenced by that of the dragon Vermithrax Pejorative from the
film DRAGONSLAYER. When they fly overhead we are surprised to see
how battle-scarred their wings are. Some of the scenes of the
dragons look like they come from fantasy book covers. The early
dragon conquests which would have been the most impressive part of
the film (as acknowledged by the poster) are quickly glossed over
to get to the more economical but less interesting action filmed
on the slag heaps.

The screenplay is full of unanswered questions, though many could
be answered in a more intelligent script. The availability of
limited amounts of petroleum and electricity could be explained
but are taken as a given. Aspects of dragon biology that drive
the plot could be consistently explained but generally are not.
What could have been an interesting premise is wasted on a dull
story with uninteresting flat characters. Perhaps an allegory was
intended comparing American confrontational foreign policy with a
European style which is much more reserved, though if so it was
not fully developed.

The dragon effects are the best thing about this film and whatever
is second is a distant second. Somehow effects are just not
enough to make this a recommendable film. I rate REIGN OF FIRE a
5 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high 0 on the -4 to +4 scale.

Minor spoiler...

There has been some discussion about the science behind the
dragons being poorly considered. This need not be true, but
explanation of what is happening with the dragons may have been
avoided to alleviate the need for cumbersome exposition. Actually
the way I figure it, much of the female dragon's biological energy
is devoted to reproduction which they do very, very fast. This
means they live a relatively short period of time and must ingest
a great deal of food much of the energy of which goes into
creating baby dragons. Like sea lions, one male services a large
harem of females. Males are larger, at least equally fierce, and
are extraordinarily long-lived not expending as much energy in
reproduction. Making things even harder on dragons something has
gone wrong with the reproductive system and the one remaining male
is producing only daughters. (There are, I believe, biological
precedents for this disorder.) This means the species will die
out shortly after the death of the last male just from the
inability to produce more males and from inbreeding, but the dying
human race may not live that long.

There is no way I can rationalize the concept that the dragons
subsist eating ash. Perhaps it was meant figuratively. [-mrl]

CAPSULE: In 1931, circumstances make a father and son fugitives
from the Capone organization. The moving story about two
different father-son relationships follows a once-loyal hit man
forced to take actions that will make him a legend. The film has
a simple plot but acting and beautiful photography turn this into
an emotionally charged and memorable film. Rating: 8 (0 to 10),
high +2 (-4 to +4)

THE ROAD TO PERDITION, perhaps the finest film ever adapted from a
comic book, is a superficially simple but multi-layered view of
two father-son relationships. It is also a look at the forces
that lead a man to fame and notoriety. The story, told in
flashback, is the story of supposed gangland legend Michael
Sullivan as seen by his son, Michael Jr.

In the winter of 1931 this is the story of twelve-year-old Michael
Sullivan, Jr. (played by Tyler Hoechlin). Michael Jr. knows his
formal and undemonstrative father, Michael Sr. (Tom Hanks) is in
some dangerous line of work for John Rooney (Paul Newman), but he
does not know what exactly his father does. This John Rooney is
the most powerful man in the small Mid-west town and has been like
a second father for Michael Sr. John gave Michael Sr. a job and
the home the family lives in. In return Michael Sr. is fiercely
loyal and would even kill for the Rooney family. One night
Michael Jr., curious about what his father does, hides in his
father's car to sneak a look at what his father really does on a
job. He sees John's son Connor Rooney (Daniel Craig) murder a man
with the help of Michael Sr. Now Michael knows what his father
does, but he also is a witness that can put Connor in jail or
worse.

John Rooney has a very hard choice to make. He loves Michael Sr.
like a son and is like a grandfather to Michael Jr., but Connor,
as much of a disappointment as he is, is a son by blood. When
Connor goes a step further killing Michael Jr.'s mother and
brother John Rooney sides with his son's plan to kill the two
Michaels and finish the job. Michael Sr. decides to run, take his
son, go to Chicago, and appeal to Rooney's boss, Frank Nitti,
lieutenant of Al Capone. (Nitti, has been played many times on
the screen but here is played by the always excellent Stanley
Tucci who invests the small role with a dignity and suavity that
actors rarely give Nitti.)

The story is very simple (and far too much of that simple story is
revealed in the film's trailer). But director Sam Mendes (of
AMERICAN BEAUTY) defines and sculpts his characters. Just as
Michael Sr. has to reluctantly betray his faithfulness to his
employer for the sake of his son, John Rooney is willing to do
whatever it takes to protect his son Connor, even to cross Nitti.
Tom Hanks has specialized in nice-guy roles and is very much cast
against type as a mob hit man. Certainly this seems to be his
first action hero. But he does not play it flamboyantly. He is a
quiet little man with a mustache. You would not look at him twice
on a street. The script makes his willingness to kill acceptable
because John Rooney wants to ask of him the one thing he cannot
give him, the life of his remaining son. For the love of his
family Michael Sr. has accepted too many good things from too many
bad people. The bill is not falling due, but Rooney is asking too
much. Paul Newman's Rooney also is a man of integrity. He is
torn by turning against a man he loves but he also has certain
loyalties he cannot allow himself to betray. He is conflicted but
knows what he has to do. These are not men who kill by choice,
but to protect their families they will do what they must. Jude
Law plays the yellow-toothed Maguire, another sort of hit man from
Sullivan. He enjoys the killing. For him a job is a way to enjoy
himself and be paid for it. The script is full of symmetries.
There are father-son symmetries, brother-brother symmetries, man
and boss symmetries.

Cinematographer Conrad Hall films the proceedings with stylish
images. Scenes are shot in dark blues and browns until late in
the film when, apparently, Michael Jr. is enjoying himself a
little more, suddenly there is a light change and a color change.
There are no bright colors in the film and red is only used when
there are very specific emotional or plot purpose. The color
makes the mood and the film is full of enigmatic scenes of the
early Thirties. In one Michael is left in a large waiting room
filled with nearly identical men all identically reading
newspapers. The winder of 1931 is a cold and wet winter and that
cold and wet suffuses and drenches just about every scene. Every
scene is perfectly framed. Mendes probably needed a lot of
patience for Hall to so perfectly set up and photograph his
scenes, but it pays off in quality of images.

This is a dark film with dark characters telling the story of a
dark period in Michael Jr.'s life. Such films are not made, they
are crafted. I rate it an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +2 on
the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]

Mark Leeper
mleeper@optonline.net
Quote of the Week:
If we think we regulate printing, thereby to rectify
manners, we must regulate all regulations and
pastimes, all that is delightful to man.
-- John Milton